It’s impossible to avert your eyes from a car crash

As much as one may try, oftentimes it is impossible to look away from the scene of a disaster. Rarely has there been as much media attention paid to a rebranding effort as with Elon Musk’s decision to rebrand Twitter as X. There were articles and comments written in many different news media around the world, including by New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman.

Following several requests for this blog to weigh in, it seemed that one should wait a bit before piling on. Let the dust settle a bit. Even after this self-imposed pause, it is impossible to find a positive angle to Musk’s actions.

According to Tweets (can this be used anymore, or is it now Xs?), the motive for rebranding Twitter was to create a site that in addition to social media, would also offer “a global marketplace for ideas, goods, services, and opportunities.” According to the Guardian, as well as other news sources, the objective is for “X to be a WeChat for the west.” WeChat is “more like several apps rolled into one, used for messaging, social media, payments, subscriptions, utility bills, food deliveries, plane and train tickets, ride hailing and much more. It is owned by the Chinese tech giant Tencent.”

Fair enough. If Musk wanted to create this all-encompassing app, retaining the Twitter name would have been much more effective. The name WeChat has much more in common with Twitter than with X. Unlike X, both Twitter and WeChat are friendly, evocative names. Would anyone trust X to pay utility bills or conduct other financial transactions? Unlikely.

While some people have associated the name X with porn sites, in his column, Paul Krugman associated the X logo to the “Z” painted on Russian tanks and other military vehicles that invaded Ukraine last year. X is also incongruous with the app’s checkmark, ostensibly an icon associated with trustworthiness. (Musk has attempted to monetize the use of the checkmark, yet another ill-advised move.) Whereas a checkmark is a positive sign, in this context, X is negative.

Musk has had a long fascination with X as a brand. His initial online financial services company was known as x.com. It was renamed PayPal, following its merger with Confinity in 2000. PayPal is another example of a brand name that has more in common with Twitter and WeChat. (Which brand would you trust with your financial transactions, x.com or PayPal?)

By renaming Twitter to X, according to media reports, the company has lost between $4 billion and $20 billion in value. That has led to some snide remarks online, viewing this as Musk’s comeuppance. What is lost though, is the wreckage of the lives of others caused by Musk’s recklessness. He had already fired a sizable portion of the Twitter workforce, and if this renaming, along with the other questionable moves at the app, results in continued financial losses for the company, more people will be out of work, suffering all the ensuing financial difficulties and distress.

If this were a publicly traded company, Elon Musk would at the very least have a responsibility to the shareholders to create company value, not destroy it. He would have to answer to a board of directors and shareholders for his actions. He should have the same responsibility to his employees.

Just because someone owns an automobile, it does not permit that individual to drive without regard to the rules of the road and crash the car. Even if no one else is involved, there may be dire consequences for the driver. Maybe this should be kept in mind with the rebranding of Twitter.

about.twitter.com
twitter.com
nytimes.com
theguardian.com
bloomberg.com